Saturday, May 29, 2010

A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome

Evolutionists have a problem. Their theory doesn’t fit the facts, yet it must be true. They have to constantly change their story, all the while insisting it is a fact. Like a Heraclitean flux, it is constantly changing and yet always called the same thing. Evolutionists are continually surprised by the science, yet they euphemistically call this “progress.” A recent article in The Lancet, suggesting that evolution is like a rhizome, is a good example of evolution’s folly that is so obvious.

In 2009, with the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday, the concept of Darwinism became so popular that it was celebrated in most biological journals. However, the Darwinist theory of evolution is associated with the scientific knowledge and outdated beliefs of the 19th century. The theory is characterised by a description of life as a tree in which all living organisms are thought to have a single ancestor and where each node represents a common ancestor (Darwin's tree) … The structure of our current knowledge base has changed substantially. …

Darwin was certain god would not have created the nested hierarchy pattern the species were thought to form. Today we know that pattern is a crude and inaccurate model.

In the 21st century, the genomic revolution has brought about an important change in the way we think about life, which has forced us to reconsider the way we describe evolution. Genomic data have gradually accumulated and show that there were multiple original sources of the genetic information of living organisms, with inheritance occurring not only vertically but also laterally. Such lateral gene transfer, initially observed only in bacteria, was quickly identified in all living organisms. For example, the human genome is a mosaic of genes with eukaryotic, bacterial (in the mitochondria and the nucleus), and viral origins. …

Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism. Comparative genome analysis shows not only a substantial level of plasticity in the gene repertoire, but also provides evidence that nearly all genes, including ribosomal genes, have been exchanged or recombined at some point in time. Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.

So why do we need the nineteenth century dogma again?

Moreover, there are some genes that do not have a single history, due to the occurrence of intragenic recombinations. Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created through gene fusion, degradation, or other events, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations.

When the evolutionist states that the genes that appear out of nowhere are “likely to be newly created through gene fusion, degradation, or other events,” he means as opposed to having evolved by the conventional common descent narrative, or via horizontal gene transfer. Those avenues are ruled out, so the evolutionist must resort to unlikely schemes. He then labels them as “likely” not because science and mathematics reveals this to be so, but because evolution must be true.

A post-Darwinist concept of the living species can be proposed, to integrate the theories of multiplicity and de-novo creation … I believe that the evolution of species looks much more like a rhizome (or a mycelium). Consequently, this view of evolution resembles a clump of roots that considers the occurrence of multiplicities. Emerging species grow from the rhizome with gene repertoires of various origins that will allow, under favourable environmental conditions, the multiplication and perpetuation of this species. As such, potential new species and new genes are continuously appearing.

A good example of how evolutionary thought makes a mockery of science.

I suggest we respect the revolutionary mind of Darwin and allow the theory of evolution itself to evolve from a tree to a rhizome.

There’s not much to respect. Darwin was not an intellectual revolutionary. The theological and philosophical heavy lifting was done long before Darwin got in a boat and went anywhere. Darwin had good command of the science, but turned it upside down to fit the metaphysics of the day.

94 comments:

A lot of this article you quote -- actually a short opinion piece in a medical journal -- is inaccurate and was rebutted by e.g. Theobald's article. Not that you care about things like accuracy. It's like the author hasn't heard of population genetics.

The ORFans stuff is rebutted here:http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/inordinately-fo.html

...but you never give the science anything like a critical analysis or fair shake, you just mindlessly spew condemnations. So what's the point?

"A lot of this article you quote -- actually a short opinion piece in a medical journal -- is inaccurate and was rebutted by e.g. Theobald's article."

That is absurd. The only thing Theobald's article revealed is how badly evolution has compromised the peer review process. You can't take a couple dozen highly-conserved proteins and arrive at that conclusion. It is a mockery of science and logic based on fallacious reasoning (science requires logical reasoning).

"Not that you care about things like accuracy."

No Nick, I'm not the one here so doesn't care about things like accuracy. I care very much about things like accuracy.

===It's like the author hasn't heard of population genetics.

The ORFans stuff is rebutted here:http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/inordinately-fo.html===

I will blog on that, so will hold off on commenting for now.

"...but you never give the science anything like a critical analysis or fair shake, you just mindlessly spew condemnations. So what's the point? "

No, I acknowledge that there is evidence for evolution, plenty of it. I also acknowledge that future findings may change the picture to be more in favor of evolution. And I also acknowledge that evolution may be true, or parts may be true, because there is some evidence.

However, the truth claims that evolutionists make, and have been making for centuries, while explicitly mandated by religious beliefs, are in rather violent contradiction with the empirical science. You of all people should understand this. Instead, you have chosen to live a lie. Sounds harsh and rhetorical, but there's no getting around it.

Evolution may be true, it may be false, it may be somewhere in between, but we simply do not know evolution to be a fact--not even close. There are substantial scientific problems which evolutionists mischaracterize as "research problems."

So what's the point? The point is to clarify these issues. From creationists who micharacterize evolutionists, to evolutionists who mischaracterize science, there is a great need of clarification. I don't know the truth of origins, but I can spot lie when it's this obvious.

"No, I acknowledge that there is evidence for evolution, plenty of it."

Like what? You've said this a few times, but when asked to say what exactly it is that you consider to be evidence for evolution, you never answer. Surely you can provide a few examples since there is, as you say, "plenty of it."

==="Living a lie"? Wow. Strong language. Now I'm wondering if you or another leader in the ID movement is willing to tell Behe that he is living a lie for accepting common descent.===

But I didn't say evolutionists are living a lie for accepting evolution? The problem is that they claim it is an undeniable fact, as much as is gravity, the roundness of the earth, heliocentrism, etc. The only excuse, thay say, would be ignorance of the evidence. Try reading what evolutionists are saying on this.

===Like what? You've said this a few times, but when asked to say what exactly it is that you consider to be evidence for evolution, you never answer. Surely you can provide a few examples since there is, as you say, "plenty of it." ===

For example, similarities between species, patterns in the fossil record, observed changes in populations, some aspects of biogeography.

The issue is not wether evolution is true or nor, but wether it happened by chance or by purpose and design. HGT, the fact that many genetic sequences in higher taxonomic organisms come from virus and/or bacteria seems to me clearly evidence for purpose. Virus are messengers of life keeping in the capside the recipe for the genome of future organisms where these sequences will express its hiden genetic meaning.

"It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence foer common ancestry of chimps and humans.That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures are biological relatives." -- Behe, EoE, p.72 (my emphasis).

Though Behe goes on to challenge the mechanism of common descent, it's difficult to imagine a stronger endorsement for it. This is getting ridiculous. I see you, Casey Luskin, Denyse O'leary and other ID proponents continually attacking evolutionists for holding on to irrational beliefs, but never a word against Behe, even though he used the same evidence for common descent, and the same strong language supporting it. Just once have the courage to publicly say, "I believe that Behe is also mistaken about the strength of the evidence, and he should either issue a retraction, or explain why he still thinks the evidence for common descent is so compelling."

may be I can answer your question.You can find a very clear explanation of why common ancestry, as far as a certain understanding of naturalism can fit into ID ortodoxy, by reading a post on Uncommondescent dated May 23th. Written by Cudworth its title is "Francis Beckwith replys to UD critics". Irrational beliefs is not evolutionism itself, irrational belief is to purport that it just happened by chance.

What a bizarre post. You have Didier Raoult, an MD/PhD enamored of the philosophical theories of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (not surprising, given that he's French and that he works in infectious diseases like Rickettsia), proposing a change in the *metaphor* for evolution (not a new one, since Deleuze and Guattari proposed something similar decades ago -- see *A Thousand Plateaus*). How this event "is a good example of evolution’s folly" is obvious only to you.

You are starting to rival Denyse O'Leary for your focus on the trivial. Of course Darwin was constrained by the conceptual trends of his day. So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago.

Unless I misunderstand him, Dr. Hunter is challenging common descent as much as whether it was by chance or design, and thinks that anyone who believes that there is no reason to doubt common descent is living a lie. Fair enough. I suggest he clean out his own house first.

========="It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence foer common ancestry of chimps and humans.That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures are biological relatives." -- Behe, EoE, p.72 (my emphasis).

Though Behe goes on to challenge the mechanism of common descent, it's difficult to imagine a stronger endorsement for it. This is getting ridiculous ...============

Once you allow for design, creationism, etc, then many of the problems with CD (which are uncontroversial) can, potentially, be handled. So you dissolve the problems and keep the supporting evidence. I think that is substantially different than what evolutionists claim.

There much more to say, when there is more time, but your point raises the question of the various solutions and explanations out there, which I think is interesting.

Bilbo: "Unless I misunderstand him, Dr. Hunter is challenging common descent as much as whether it was by chance or design, and thinks that anyone who believes that there is no reason to doubt common descent is living a lie. Fair enough. I suggest he clean out his own house first."

Neither Dr. Hunter nor any of the whining ID sycophants have any sort of coherent position on how ID actually occurred. Some say everything was designed, some say only some things. Some say animals were designed as is, some say the genome was 'front loaded' and evolution allowed to happen from then on. Some say the design happened once billions of years ago, some say once 6000 years ago, some say the Designer still tinkers today.

The only thing they have in common is they all whine "ToE is BAD BAD BAD I don't like I don't understand it IT SCARES ME, so my Christian God must be the Designer of EVERYTHING!!"

I'm one of those whining ID sycophants you refer to. I do not think the ToE is bad, bad, all bad. It appears to me that there is good evidence that the origin of life was designed and possibly some or even most of its evolution. I'm waiting for more evidence before I decide how much was designed. Is that unreasonable?

I'm one of those whining ID sycophants you refer to. I do not think the ToE is bad, bad, all bad. It appears to me that there is good evidence that the origin of life was designed and possibly some or even most of its evolution. I'm waiting for more evidence before I decide how much was designed. Is that unreasonable?

Hi Bilbo,

What positive evidence do you have for this position? Every last piece of ID 'evidence' I've ever seen involves just claiming 'evolution can't have done this, so ID wins by default'.

If you know anything at all about science you should understand that science doesn't work that way. You need positive evidence for your ID position. That means identifying the mechanisms of implementing this design, or materials used, or time and place of design, or (gasp!) the identity of the Designer. ID has none of that, not even one lone clue.

The issue is not wether evolution is true or not, but wether it happened by chance or by purpose and design.

That is NOT the issue. You are making the mistake of assuming the theory of evolution is just random chance. This mistake is very common among the ID/Creationist circles, but anyone with an understanding of biology above high school level can tell you it is wrong.

There is an element of chance in the theory, it is true - but there is far, far more to it than that, and it is precisely the non-chance elements of evolution which allow it to work. Evolution is driven by natural selection, which filters out the 'random chance' element, and builds order from chaos selectively and cumulatively.

If evolution truly behaved in accordance with chance then perhaps we might see animal species adopting all sorts of mutations with all sorts of values, some good, most bad, and staggering around not really increasing their fitness. THAT would be random chance. And no-one is proposing it.

Natural selection eliminates the 'bad' mutations and preserves the 'good' ones. So overall species may only go forward in fitness, never backwards. And the changes that natural selection favors are not random, but are determined by the characteristics of the environment.

So there are NOT merely two options - chance and design. There are at least three - chance, design, and natural selection.

As to you comment to Thorton:

LMAO spoken like a true scientist. They just do! Who cares why.

That is not what he said. And he does actually have a point. How do we know whether the laws of physics could possibly be anything other than they are?

But more importantly, you are committing the lottery fallacy.

Imagine 1,000,000 people are playing a lottery with odds of 1,000,000 to one. Someone wins. That one person will have beaten odds of 1,000,000 to one! Incredible! Miraculous! Surely someone has rigged the lottery in their favour? Surely there are forces at work here other than mere chance - luck, or destiny, or divine intervention, perhaps?

Such thinking is logically unjustified. SOMEONE had to win the lottery, and whoever it was was always going to beat odds of 1,000,000 to one.

Or imagine a golfball hit blindly nito a golf green. It has to land somewhere. It is no good going up to it afterwards and saynig 'Wow, what are the odds of it landing exactly there?' The fact that it landed just where it did does NOT give us reason to conclude it was guided, or the result of anything other than chance.

So it is with the laws of physics. Assuming it is even possible for them to be set other than they are, that still gives us no reason to see design, or premeditation, or intervention of any kind in it.

Fil: Hey Thornton, still waiting for you to explain WHY the laws of chemistry and physics work as they do.

Thornton: Why would they not?

Fil: LMAO spoken like a true scientist. They just do! Who cares why.

The more complete answer to your inane question is that the laws of chemistry and physics we observe define the universe we live in. If the laws of chemistry and physics were different, we possible would be in an alternative universe but we wouldn't be in this one.

It's like the mud puddle claiming it was designed because it exactly fits the hole in which it sits.

let me quote what the famous materialist atheist hyperdarwinist evolutionist William Provine has to say about the creative power of Natural selection:"I read Will Provine’s classic The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), a standard history of the laying of the mathematical and conceptual foundations, in the work of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright, of what later came to be known as the Evolutionary Synthesis (i.e., textbook neo-Darwinism).When Chicago reissued the book in 2001, Provine added a remarkable Afterword. With characteristic candor, he wrote that “my views have changed dramatically.” Natural selection, for instance, Provine no longer saw as a “force” or “mechanism” of any kind:Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)"

As for the quote itself, frankly it sounds suspiciously like a quote taken entirely out of context. He may be saying what natural selection is NOT, but what is he saying it IS? I rather suspect that answer to this will not at all be to your liking. Funny that it has been omitted...

Do you have any more of the passage? I ask because this quote seems to be third hand - it seems YOU have accepted the quote mined by someone else rather than finding it yourself.

If you're trying to undermine the cumulative power of natural selection, you'll have to do better than that.

Selection is not a force in the sense that gravity or the strong nuclear force is. However, for the sake of brevity, biologists sometimes refer to it that way. This often leads to some confusion when biologists speak of selection "pressures." This implies that the environment "pushes" a population to more adapted state. This is not the case. Selection merely favors beneficial genetic changes when they occur by chance -- it does not contribute to their appearance. The potential for selection to act may long precede the appearance of selectable genetic variation. When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Perhaps this is roughly the point Dr Provine was trying to make? Without more of the passage, it is extremely difficult to tell...

I think that what Provine means is straight that NS can not account for the emergence of biological novelties.

In fact this is also the main point of recently published book by Jerry Fodor and Piattelli "Whay Darwin got wrong": NS is a tautology and it incurrs in what Fodor calls "intentional fallacy"; adaptationism is an empty discourse.

If this is not convincing enough for you please take a look back to "The origin of species" by a certain Mr Darwin. In chapter 4 about NS he explicitly says that many authors have missunderstood the term Natural Selection, thinking that NS produces the variability whereas it only maintains what has previously been created by chance.

Felipe just plagiarized verbatim a post by Paul Nelson made at UD here.

The quote is indeed taken out of context. It misinterprets Provine's position on evolution. All Provine did is to state that he now thinks the genetic variation part of 'generic variation plus selection' is the main driving engine of evolution. Allan MacNeill put together a list of the causes of genetic variation, as well as this description

MacNeill: "As I have already pointed out in an earlier post, the real creative factor in evolution isn't natural selection per se, it's the "engines of variation" that produce the various heritable characteristics that natural selection then preserves from generation to generation. According to the creationists and IDers, the only source of such variation is "random mutations", and so there simply isn't enough variation to provide the raw material for evolutionary change."

You are barking up the wrong tree. Science does not answer the question why? It answers the question how? "

That's the best answer I heard. As to the other two:

Ritchie, imagine a lottery with a 1 in a million chance. You get one play ever...that's it. You are wrong the first time, no second chances. One player, one ticket. No multiples.

Thornton, the universe as a mud puddle... nice analogy, I'd better not try to dissect it since, as you know, it would break down immediately.

A better analogy is a room with dozens of dials all set to the correct setting. A single one off and things would be chaos.

You say natural selection works on large numbers over a long period of time.... prove that regading a first cause.

Even Darwin himself said, “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause."

====It sounds like you're saying it's reasonable for an ID proponent to accept common descent, but not for someone who denies ID to accept it. Perhaps you could discuss that at length sometime.====

Well I'm not quite saying that. It's just that when you invoke design or creation, you allow for many more avenues of explanation. To say much more I would need to understand Mike's position on CD more clearly.

Remember that evolution, design and creation all come from the same place, and it is not difficult to find shared premises in yesterday's as well as today's thinkers across these different ideas.

Hence there are positions within creation and design with which I do not agree.

========What a bizarre post. You have Didier Raoult, an MD/PhD enamored of the philosophical theories of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (not surprising, given that he's French and that he works in infectious diseases like Rickettsia), proposing a change in the *metaphor* for evolution (not a new one, since Deleuze and Guattari proposed something similar decades ago -- see *A Thousand Plateaus*). How this event "is a good example of evolution’s folly" is obvious only to you. ========

And anyone else familiar with the evidence. The fact that Raoult takes a position outside the mainstream does not mean the evidence he grapples with doesn't matter. This is a good example of your folly because it is a manifestation of the evidential problems that have been there all along.

=====So what? IDers are constrained by the conceptual trends of 500 years ago. =====

Ah, yes, it always goes back to those rascals. What would you do without them?

Ritchie, imagine a lottery with a 1 in a million chance. You get one play ever...that's it. You are wrong the first time, no second chances. One player, one ticket. No multiples.

Wrong.

You are only looking at it from ONE PERSON'S perspective. If there are a million people playing, then the likelihood is that SOMEONE will win.

I don't know where you live, but assuming you are not British, I am not sure if your national lottery works the same way as ours, but in Britain the odds of winning the lottery are about one in 14 million. Yet nearly every week SOMEONE hits the jackpot. SOMEONE beats odds of 14 million to one. Is that grounds to believe the result is the outcome of anything other than chance? No. Because so many people play.

Given enough attempts, even unlikely outcomes will inevitably happen.

Just because the laws of physics happen to be set just so, and there were (presumably) many other possible arrangements for the laws of physics, does not give us any reason to think that THIS setup was in any was planned/designed/created.

For one thing, we have no idea whether the laws of physics could be set any other way. Perhaps the laws of physics are just a brute fact.

And even if there are many possible variations on exactly how the laws of physics could be set, we have no way of knowing how many would produce life OF ANY KIND.

Perhaps if the laws of physics were a bit different, the universe would be different and different types of life would have emerged, ones we cannot even imagine. And then THOSE creatures would be sitting around thinking 'Gosh, what are the odds of the laws of physics being set just right for our existence?'

If we go back to when your parents were babies, what were the odds that they would meet, and happen to have sex at just the right moment to conceive you? The odds against it must have been staggering. But that gives you no reason to conclude that your birth is anything other than the result of chance. The conditions of your conception must have been 'just right' - conditions which were enormously unlikely. Does that give you reason to suppose your conception must have been destined or planned by some higher being? No.

The logic is exactly the same, and Thorton's puddle analogy is a good one. You are like the water sitting in the hole in the ground thinking that the hole must have been crafted to suit you because it exactly fits your shape.

A bird is adapted to life in a tree. It is not the tree which has been designed/constructed to suit the bird. A fish lives in the river. It is not the river which has been designed/constructed to suit the fish. Life is shaped by its environment. It is not the environment which has been tinkered with, or constructed/designed to bring about life.

"You are only looking at it from ONE PERSON'S perspective. If there are a million people playing, then the likelihood is that SOMEONE will win."

That last statement is true. But there is only one universe. One person..one universe. Or do you subscribe to the multiverse theory?

"The logic is exactly the same, and Thorton's puddle analogy is a good one. You are like the water sitting in the hole in the ground thinking that the hole must have been crafted to suit you because it exactly fits your shape. "

The complexity of a mud puddle can be determined, the complexity of the universe and what is in it is on an entirely different plane and will never be measured by humans.

"If we go back to when your parents were babies, what were the odds that they would meet, and happen to have sex at just the right moment to conceive you? The odds against it must have been staggering."

Yup, pure random chance. Is that what you are advocating? Or is this the multiverse thing again.

Once again, it had to be this way because it is. Beautiful circular reasoning.

fil: "That last statement is true. But there is only one universe. One person..one universe. Or do you subscribe to the multiverse theory?'

One universe we know about. No one knows how many others many be possible, or which of those may support life.

"The complexity of a mud puddle can be determined, the complexity of the universe and what is in it is on an entirely different plane and will never be measured by humans."

But just as the hole's shape determines the puddle's complexity, our universe's parameters determine its complexity. And just as there may be other holes with different shaped puddles, there may be universes with different laws. Same thing.

"Once again, it had to be this way because it is. Beautiful circular reasoning."

Except no one in this thread argued that. The argument goes "It is what it is, but we don't know if it has to be this way or not"

That last statement is true. But there is only one universe. One person..one universe. Or do you subscribe to the multiverse theory?

And the person who won the lottery would only be one person with one ticket. It does not matter how many other players there were - a million, a hundred, ten or none at all, there is still no reason for the winner to suspect they were the recipient of anything other than good fortune.

I acknowledge the multiverse theory entirely possible, though with no evidence I have little confidence this is so. But even this unevidenced hypothesis has a probability advantage over the concept of a creator of physical laws - we know that universes in principle are the sort of things which can exist - we are living in one. Since we know that one exists, that makes the exitence of others more likely, as we know that universes are POSSIBLE. A creator of physical laws is less likely precisely because we do not know for a fact that even one exists, and therefore we do not know if such a being is even possible.

The complexity of a mud puddle can be determined, the complexity of the universe and what is in it is on an entirely different plane and will never be measured by humans.

That wasn't quite the point. The point was that water takes the shape of the hole. It is not the hole that was crafted/designed to suit the shape of the water.

Yup, pure random chance. Is that what you are advocating? Or is this the multiverse thing again.

I am pointing out that random chance is sufficient. Probability does not point towards design. Chance is more probable than design.

Once again, it had to be this way because it is. Beautiful circular reasoning.

Not so. It is this way, and that is just a fact. Perhaps the laws of physics did have to be this way. We don't know otherwise. But even if they didn't, so what?

You are assuming that the laws of physics, if set differently, would not have resulted in any life at all. In fact you are assuming that life is some kind of end goal - a purpose, if you will - that the whole point of the universe is to result in, and then be a backdrop for, life.

Perhaps a universe with different physical laws would result in something more wonderous than mere life. Who knows? We certainly don't. But to just assume we are special, or destined, or the product of conscious intervention is like a lottery winner assuming they are more special, destined, or the recipient of conscious intervention than the other lottery players who did not win.

There's a whole lot I could say but since you say, "I am pointing out that random chance is sufficient. Probability does not point towards design. Chance is more probable than design", then I won't waste my time.

That is complete and utter nonsense. If you believe pure chance has a greater probability in creating everything we see around us than design you are blinding yourself to reality.

Human arrogance.

If we can not measure it, test it or observe it directly then it must not exist.

fil:"There's a whole lot I could say but since you say, "I am pointing out that random chance is sufficient. Probability does not point towards design. Chance is more probable than design", then I won't waste my time.

That is complete and utter nonsense. If you believe pure chance has a greater probability in creating everything we see around us than design you are blinding yourself to reality."

What a dishonest schmuck you are fil. Those statement by Richie referred specifically to his example of the probability of your parents meeting and conceiving you. He said nothing about pure chance creating everything around us.

That sort of disingenuous behavior from you is yet another reason you IDiots are held in such low regard among honest scientists.

Yup, pure random chance. Is that what you are advocating? Or is this the multiverse thing again.

Rithcie:

I am pointing out that random chance is sufficient. Probability does not point towards design. Chance is more probable than design.

------------------------------

I take these comments to mean more than just the birth of my parents. If Ritchie only meant THAT then I apologize, however I believe he meant it regarding everything. Ritchie? Am I correct? Do you honestly believe pure chance is a more probable explanation for the existance of everything than a Creator/Designer? Please elucidate.

My point was that the improbability of the universe being set to exactly the these perameters gives us no reason to infer design. Random chance accounts for it sufficiently.

I must stress that I am not attributing everything in existence to random chance here. For example, I am not attributing it to random chance that I currently happen to be dressed in clothes that fit me. That was the result of deliberate human intervention. I am not attributing it to random chance that dropped objects fall down. I am attributing that to the force of gravity. And I am not attributing the diversity of life to random chance - that I attribute to evolution, which is NOT a process guided by random chance (this point cannot be stressed enough).

I notice also that you simply switched off and call me blind and arrogant rather than address my point that chance is more probable than design. Like it or not, I believe I was making a valid point which you are simply evading.

Consider there is a room full of furniture. We ask ourselves how the furniture got there. Perhaps each piece was carried in individually by human beings. Or perhaps a magic fairy appeared and waved her wand and it all appeared. Which is the more likely explanation?

Clearly the first is simpler and more likely, because it doesn't rely on the existence of anything we don't already know exists. We know humans exist. We know furnituree exists. We know human sometimes carry furniture around. It is all possible. The second explanation, however, relies on the existence of a magical agent which defies everything we know about physics. It relies on the supernatural, thus it is going to be less likely than any explanation you can think of which requires only natural forces.

The same is true of the universe - if you are invoking a supernatural agent whose existence is less likely than the existence of the universe in the first place, and about whom we have no evidence to say that it actually exists, then your explanation is always going to be less likely than ANY explanation that relies solely on natural agents/forces, including random chance.

You can bluster about it being arrogance or 'blinding myself ot reality' all you like. But you cannot chance the facts. Explanations that rely on hypothetical agents who are less likely than the universe will always be less likely to be true than explanations which invoke only natural forces. The idea of a designer, in short, is indeed less likely than random chance.

"My point was that the improbability of the universe being set to exactly the these perameters gives us no reason to infer design. Random chance accounts for it sufficiently."

"Being set"? You mean randomly falling on the right parameters don't you? It's not semantics. Evolutionists cannot help but use words and phrases that infer a guiding mind. You refuse it conciously but it comes out subconsciously whether you mean it or not.

"I must stress that I am not attributing everything in existence to random chance here. For example, I am not attributing it to random chance that I currently happen to be dressed in clothes that fit me. That was the result of deliberate human intervention. I am not attributing it to random chance that dropped objects fall down. I am attributing that to the force of gravity. And I am not attributing the diversity of life to random chance - that I attribute to evolution, which is NOT a process guided by random chance (this point cannot be stressed enough)."

I understand the difference, sorry if I did not explain myself properly. However, you do attribute the fact that the universe exists at all, and because of that the possibility of life, to random chance. ie. the lottery. But I must stress that your analogy of millions of people playing the lottery is incorrect. The laws of physics are what they are. Our universe exists because of that. To change things, even fractionally, would make all we see impossible. That is like one person with one ticket and billions to one odds... and the lottery only happens once. You don't repeat it until someone wins.

"I notice also that you simply switched off and call me blind and arrogant rather than address my point that chance is more probable than design. Like it or not, I believe I was making a valid point which you are simply evading."

I believe people who feel everything has an explanation that will/can eventually be answered by science are arrogant. It doesn't mean you are a cocky p.o.s. but it does give far to much credit to us as humans intelectually. Science causes as many problems as it cures. Whether it's due to the scientists or the politicians who fund them I won't speculate here. Also, what we believe to be facts sometimes change.

As to your last 4 paragraphs you cannot use an analogy that is clearly human to reason that the supernatural do not exist. I have never misplaced a phone, had a flat tire, broken my glasses, moved furniture, or walked into a room full of furniture and assumed the reasons were anything but natural. That would be like an ant finding a tunnel in his colony and assuming that they were dug by anything but an ant... they wouldn't think" I wonder if those huge walking things dug this for me!

As for the quote

"The second explanation, however, relies on the existence of a magical agent which defies everything we know about physics. "

And our knowledge is anywhere near complete? If so I repeat: arrogance.

I'm so impressed by your persistent and stubborn ability to ignore and confuse issues. I knew you wouldn't have the honesty or guts to face up to facts.

You obviously did not read Pullin's work, but rather found and cherry picked a couple of isolated phrases.

Normally this is called quote-mining and for obvious reasons thats just what you did - you utterly ignored both context and the entire remainder of the site and even the rest of the pages you found your quotes on!

Again, why am I not surprised by this display of dishonesty and rampallian character?

Its usually a waste of time and energy trying to get even the most simple reasoning through to Ritchie (or thorton)

Get this- Ritchie once told us that the the probability of a creator must be much smaller than the probability of the universe existing.He then went on to say that this means the probability of there being a designer was therefore infinitely small.

I answered - the probability of the universe existing is 100% because it does exist, therefore, according to Ritchie's own "logic", the probability of a creator existing is indeed extremely high!

Believe it or not he still claimed it was the opposite and couldn't see the problem with his "reasoning"!

Darwinists and more especially atheists suffer from acute cognitive dissonance which has blinded them to simple and true logic.

Somehow, *this is my own hypothesis), cognitive dissonance affects something in the reasoning faculties of the human brain. i.e. causes a physical short circuit in the brain's logic gates so that things simply no longer connect quite right.

This blog and every debate I've seen with atheist fundamentalists is evidence of this mental anomaly.

Of course, all humans suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance but the closer one gets to and accepts the truth the less dissonance there is.

Both atheism and Darwinism are monuments to bad logic and faulty reasoning based on inner desires to secure oneself in materialism where no pesky God can come disturb the "peace".

"Being set"? You mean randomly falling on the right parameters don't you? It's not semantics. Evolutionists cannot help but use words and phrases that infer a guiding mind. You refuse it conciously but it comes out subconsciously whether you mean it or not.

What are you actually trying to say here? That I believe in a guiding mind? Because I do not. That I believe in one subconsciously? What a thoroughly bizarre claim. I don't follow you at all here. I also object to the use of the word 'evolutionists' in this context. I am not discussing evolution here. This is about the probability of the universe, not evolution.

The laws of physics are what they are. Our universe exists because of that. To change things, even fractionally, would make all we see impossible.

Yes, I accept that. OUR sort of universe - OUR sort of life might well be impossible. But to change things might well bring about a different sort of universe with a different sort of life. Go back to the lottery - if different numbers had come out, a different person would have won - a different person whose odds of winning beforehand were just as bad as everyone else's.

That is like one person with one ticket and billions to one odds... and the lottery only happens once. You don't repeat it until someone wins.

You are making assertions you simply cannot back up. You are assuming there is only one universe, that it started only once, and that there are many different ways in which the laws of physics might exist. We do not know any of these things are true at all. Maybe there are multiple universes. Why not? This one exists. Why not another? Or ten more? Or a billion? And who says the laws of physics can be anything other than they are? Maybe they are just brute facts.

I believe people who feel everything has an explanation that will/can eventually be answered by science are arrogant. It doesn't mean you are a cocky p.o.s. but it does give far to much credit to us as humans intelectually.

I did not take offense. But I do not see it as arrogant. I do not think we will necessarily find the answers to everything. Some things may be simply beyond our comprehension. But that does not mean they are magic. Just that human intellect is limited.

Frankly I find it far more arrogant to believe that a great being specifically arranged the ENTIRE UNIVERSE just to bring us about? Why bother? Why should such a being care two figs for creatures like us? Why assume the universe is here for OUR benefit? That strikes me as extremely arrogant and self-important.

As to your last 4 paragraphs you cannot use an analogy that is clearly human to reason that the supernatural do not exist.

I am not reasoning the supernatural does not exist. I am reasoning that it is LESS PROBABLE than any possible natural explanation.

And our knowledge is anywhere near complete?

Not at all. But throughout the history of man, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be NOT magic. Once, Gods and spirits were invoked to explain everything we didn't understand, from the weather to the seasons to disease to pregnancy to the stars. We understand these things now, and the mystical explanations have always turned out to be wrong, and repaced with entirely naturalistic ones. It is not arrogance to notice this trend and to assume that it will continue - that on mystery after mystery, ignorance and superstition will give way to rational and naturalistic explanations. They always have in the past.

Perhaps everything we think we know about the world really IS wrong. But then why does science WORK? Science's greatest achievements - cloning, getting us to the moon, medicine, transplants, the internet, technology, none of these things should work if science was wrong.

I see you have not learned much in the way of logic since last we spoke.

If a being designs an object, that means the being must be more complex than the object it designs. Otherwise how can it have designed it?

So on the face of it, a designer of the universe must be more complex than the universe.

The universe also enjoys another probability advantage - we know it exists, so the probability that it exists is 100%. A hypothetical creator enjoys no such advantage. We do not know one exists so, it remains purely hypothetical and the odds of it existing are extremely (I don't recall ever using the word 'infintely') small.

The fact that you don't undersand this is not my failing. It is yours.

Besides that I don't see anything much in your post worth responding to besides an angry, frustrated rant.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that says that complexity has to come from more complexity. Simple computer programs can create complex results. If there were such a law, then that would overturn evolution at a stroke. Complexity just has to come from somewhere.

I am not the one advocating that complexity has to come from greater complexity.

I am arguing that a designer has to be more complex than that which it designs.

If I design something, that particular something has to be within my imagination. I have to be able to plan it. Otherwise how can I possibly be said to have designed it?

If I threw paint balls at a wall, I could be said to have created the resulting splats, but not to have designed them, since I did not plan in advance the exact shape of each individual splat.

To my knowledge this metaphor is incompatible with ID. No-one I have ever heard is claiming a big creator just threw some laws and matter together randomly just to see what would happen with absolutely no idea in advance what the result would look like. The claim is that life/the universe is deliberately designed - planned. Like an architect at his blueprint. The result of which must be less complex (and therefore less probable) than the designer.

Ritchie, you make some valid points, but I still disagree based on my examination of evidence in the Bible, things that have no material explanation, only a supernatural one. (Ok, I'll wait for the mockery now).

You said complexity has to come from somewhere, even if it builds up gradually from simplicity. It cannot, however, build up from nowhere. Something has always existed and to me the explanation of an always existing mind is more rational than always existing matter.

Does a designer need to be more complex than his creation? Maybe. I can't think of any examples to the contrary. While that does make it, in theory, less probable it doesn't make it impossible. So my belief is as mentioned above, based on evidence that strengthened my views.

And no, I don't believe simple because I want to, that would be pointless. I believe because I was conviced.

To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says that a designer has to be more complex that what he designs. Theoretically, a human can design a machine that has more parts than a human does. And even if there was such a law, conventional theology teaches that God is not subject to the laws of the universe.

but I still disagree based on my examination of evidence in the Bible, things that have no material explanation, only a supernatural one.

I won't mock, and I appreciate your honesty. But you realise you are starting with the assumption that the Bible is correct? Bearing in mind that the Bible includes a great number of events we can describe as miraculopus as best, if not outright magic, then what reason do we have to believe the Bible is in fact correct rather than, say, a collection of books detailing the myths and superstitions of a scientifically primitive people?

You said complexity has to come from somewhere, even if it builds up gradually from simplicity. It cannot, however, build up from nowhere. Something has always existed and to me the explanation of an always existing mind is more rational than always existing matter.

Not an unreasonable point. However notice that an honest answer to 'Where did the universe come from' is 'We don't know'. It is simply a mystery. But that does not give us license to make up our own explanations. Saying 'I don't know' in science is perfectly valid, and we should not put any particular guess forward as a default winner.

Also notice that postulating a creator then poses the question of where the creator came from. Are we to invoke an infinite chain of creators?

While that does make it, in theory, less probable it doesn't make it impossible.

Yes, I'll give you that. Then again, ANYTHING is possible.

And no, I don't believe simple because I want to, that would be pointless. I believe because I was conviced.

If you don't mind my asking; how? What was the evidence/arguments which convinced you?

"But you realise you are starting with the assumption that the Bible is correct?"

No, I actually didn't start with the assumption the Bible is correct. To do that would require blind faith.

"Also notice that postulating a creator then poses the question of where the creator came from. Are we to invoke an infinite chain of creators?"

Nope, just one. If matter is the ultimate source are we to imagine an endless expansion and contraction of matter in cycles that have always existed and will exist? Both of those arguments really hold no weight. Something always has been. Mind or matter.

"If you don't mind my asking; how? What was the evidence/arguments which convinced you?"

A number of things but primarily bible prophecy. There are numerous examples of things said in advance that humans could not have known would happen. I could go into it but this is not the forum. If you want details I can give you my email address and you can contact me but I'd be surprised if you weren't familiar with at least some of them.

One last thing, "what reason do we have to believe the Bible is in fact correct rather than, say, a collection of books detailing the myths and superstitions of a scientifically primitive people?"

There are many old writings and books etc. This book is unique. I have never seen a contradiction or problem of any significance that didn't have a reasonable explanation. Of course, there are still things that are unclear.

"However, the truth claims that evolutionists make...are in rather violent contradiction with the empirical science."

If you really believed that, why is this post and every other anti-evolution blog devoid of evidence? Why is everything about rhetoric? Why aren't you DOING empirical science? Can you point me to a single empirical test of an ID hypothesis that has produced a single datum?

"You of all people should understand this. Instead, you have chosen to live a lie. Sounds harsh and rhetorical, but there's no getting around it."

ALL of what you hurl is rhetorical. NONE of it is empirical.

"Evolution may be true, it may be false, it may be somewhere in between, but we simply do not know evolution to be a fact--not even close."

Sure we do! Evolution is a phenomenon. Populations of living things change over time. Period. That's a fact. We can observe it in real time.

Real scientists who study evolution (a fact) are trying to understand the mechanisms underlying it, something you lack the courage (faith) to do.

We know (maybe you don't, or maybe you avoid acknowledging this for political reasons) that there is massive evidence supporting both Darwinian and non-Darwinian mechanisms.

"So what's the point? The point is to clarify these issues."

Nothing you've written clarifies anything, Dr. Hunter. Everything you write is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.

"From creationists who micharacterize evolutionists, to evolutionists who mischaracterize science, there is a great need of clarification."

So why don't you provide some by DOING some empirical science?

Or at least blog about the actual evidence, instead of what someone else writes about the evidence. The fact that the latter is as close as you choose to get to the evidence screams that you know that you are living the lie.

This is yet another example of obfuscation. You ignore the differences, and particularly the mathematical relationships between them, because you can't explain them to save your soul.

Pretending that superimposable nested hierarchies are mere similarity is ludicrous, but it is the standard creationist deception.

Who's living the lie again? If you believe it's me, demonstrate it by taking one of the *protein* family trees (a factual representation of mathematical relationships) that span multiple phyla and explain it to us.

If you're really about the evidence and empirical science, that should be no problem for you.

If matter is the ultimate source are we to imagine an endless expansion and contraction of matter in cycles that have always existed and will exist? Both of those arguments really hold no weight. Something always has been. Mind or matter.

It seems odd to talk of mind or matter as if there were different, distinct categories. How can we possibly have mind without matter? Do we have any evidence at all for there existing 'mind' with no material subtance?

On the issue of causation, we can, I hope, agree that there is either an infinite chain of causes or a first cause. It seems to me those are our options. So now, if we are to assume a first cause, we can ask questions about what this might be.

We do in fact have a good candidate for this first cause - the quantum vacuum - a timeless, chaotic state. We do actually have emprical evidence for its existence and several of its properties - for example, 'virtual particles' do appear completely uncaused and at random from it.

Does the quantum vacuum have a cause? Perhaps. But we have no particular reason to think so besides the logic that 'everything has a cause' - a logic which is fatally flawed if there is indeed a first cause.

Yet some apologists have done exactly that - concluded the quantum vacuum must have a cause, and then posit God as a candidate. This totally unnecessary. There is no evidence for such a being, and no reason to add one onto the chain and claim Him as the first cause over simply imagining the quantum vacuum was the first cause. Doing so simply adds on an extra link in the chain which is entirely hypothetical and also unhelpful in solving the mystery of the first cause.

On the issue of the Bible, I do agree this is probably not the forum. Nevertheless I do hold a genuine interest. As a skeptic I go out of my way to search for evidence or arguments of supernatural/religious claims and see if they hold up. I am an atheist simply because so far, to my satisfaction, none have.

If you wish to send me what you consider to be evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of fables and superstitions (possibly based in historical truth, but not to an un-/sub-/super- natural degree) then please feel free to contact me at my email address which I will put in a post below for the purposes of easy deletion. But bear in mind I will be assessing this evidence critically. Also, though you claim not to have found any contradictions or errors of any significance, I believe I can show you just that.

In short, if you wish to preach to an impressionable mind, then it is probably a waste of our time. But if you wish to continue an open and frank debate, then please feel free to contact me.

It's not at all relevant scientifically. It has some negative relevance politically because it forces honest science and scholastic organizations to waste real time and real money to combat. Real time and real money needed to fight the legal battles to stop the ID pushing charlatans from trying to 'back door' their religious horsecrap into public school science classes. Real time and real money that otherwise could have been spent on books and education for the students.

According to the book the "Endless Universe" there are ten dimensional branes that crash together under gravity, and some of the kinetic energy released becomes the universe. But they had to fudge the math to get around hte problem of the singularity. And according to another theory, the universe is will recollapse, then rebound. But they also had to fudge the math to avoid the problem of the singularity.

Oleg:

Yes, quantum fluctuations exist, but to the best of my knowledge the virual particles anihilate each other before they can be detected.

This really isn't my field particularly, so I have no reason to doubt what you say. However, it is worth noting that my point still stands.

For argument's sake let's say we don't have a suitable candidate for this first cause (or perhaps we should just call the universe itself the first cause). Invoking a God as a first cause is still unnecessary, unhelpful and totally hypothetical. It would still be a whimsical and unsubstanciated link in the chain.

If we don't have a good natural explanation, or even a explanation that is possible, i.e. gets around the problem f the singularity, then we need a supernatural one, or just say "I don't know." I don't accept "I don't know" from my students, so I'm not satisfied with it as a answer from scientists.

'I don't know' is a perfectly acceptable response in science. And it most certainly does not imply the need for a supernatural explanation.

There may be lots of reasons a mystery is a mystery - a lack of evidence, for example. We might not know how something happened because we just don't have the evidence. It's like being asked who killed the butler in a murder mystery without having read the story.

Besides, in science we never turn to the supernatural as an explanation. Because if the supernatural is real, then absolutely anything is possible and we have no way of investigating it.

If there is no possible natural answer, i.e. the existance of the universe violates the known natural laws, e.g. first thermodynamics, uncertainty principle, general relativity, then we need a supernatural one.

And scientists have no problem with supernatural explanations. Multiverse is a perfectly scientific explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. It is supernatural. It just says that the supernatural happens somewhere else.

And maybe anything is possible. The possible things that don't happen that often are miracles. And we can investigate them with our sense , just like everything else.

If there is no possible natural answer, i.e. the existance of the universe violates the known natural laws, e.g. first thermodynamics, uncertainty principle, general relativity, then we need a supernatural one.

Who said there is no possible natural answer? How do we know there ISN'T a natural answer that we just haven't worked out/thought up yet?

And scientists have no problem with supernatural explanations. Multiverse is a perfectly scientific explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. It is supernatural. It just says that the supernatural happens somewhere else.

Not so. This is not a supernatural assertion. We know one universe exists - this one. What is supernatural about hypothesising that another may also exist? It is, after all, consistent with what we know to be true (that universes do, in principle, exist).

And maybe anything is possible. The possible things that don't happen that often are miracles. And we can investigate them with our sense , just like everything else.

Well yes, maybe anything IS possible. But so far every mystery ever solved has turned out to be NOT magic. Every explaination has always turned out to be a natural one, with superstitions and the supernatural simply invoked to explain the things we haven't actually worked out yet.

Miracles are, by defintion, violations of natural law. And we have precisely zero evidence that one has ever taken place.

And multiverse says that there are univereses where the laws are different than our universe. There are universes where there are unicorns and leprechauns. That soundss supernatural to me.And saying that every mystery solved has turned out top be natural is a bit of a tautology when you define solving as finding a natural explanation.

And I'm not sure there is nbo evidence for miracles. There's the Bible. There's lots of eyewitness testimony from all over the world. That evidence, but not proof/